I see that the article has greatly expanded, and naturally taken a look at the COVID and related issues, since October 2019 when
the article was much smaller (with 13 refs). An immediate concern therefore is balance and the avoidance of
WP:COATRACKery. At first glance the editing has made quite good progress in this direction, despite the obvious pressures. It may be helpful to say that both as a reviewer and as a nominator, I'm used to working through a GAN process that involves negotiation and sometimes substantial changes to the text, even if this takes a bit of time. The comments that follow below are just my first thoughts and I'm happy to hear your thoughts and any constructive suggestions.
@
Chiswick Chap: Thanks for starting the review! It may take me a few days to get around to many of these since expansion and splitting could be quite involved, but I think that these are some really good suggestions. — MarkH21talk17:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Apologies again for the ongoing delay for the last two points, I'm gathering sources and I may not be able to use them right now, but hopefully soon. The patience is very much appreciated! — MarkH21talk07:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Please take a look and let me know what you think. The only references I could find relate to two markets, in France and Italy.
Urve (
talk)
16:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Europe is very lightly represented, with just one example (Dublin). This certainly does not do justice to Europe's rich array of traditional markets selling fresh fish, meat, dairy, and vegetables on street stalls every week.
Not a lot of sources use the exact terms wet market when discussing traditional markets in Europe that would otherwise fit the definition so there is a minor
WP:SYNTH concern. Otherwise though, the section could definitely otherwise be expanded under the alternative name of "traditional markets" as listed in the lead. What do you think about this? — MarkH21talk17:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)reply
I think we'll be all right, provided you give and cite a decent definition. You may find
Wet Markets and Food Safety by Kogan et al 2019 useful, as it makes it clear that wet markets occur in Europe as elsewhere, and provides a simple definition which unquestionably includes Europe and indeed all continents.
Hong Kong and to some extent Indonesia and Nigeria are over-represented. I'd suggest they be cut down so that we have roughly even coverage per region, and one paragraph per chosen country (I don't think we can cover every country, nor would it be appropriate to make this such a long list). Since Hong Kong is now governed by China there seems little reason to give it such prominence or indeed to give it separate coverage at all; if the China section is to be split out as a separate article, say "
China's wet markets" then the Hong Kong section should go with it, leaving just one "main" link and one paragraph of summary text.
Given that (I assume) we're not going to try to cover every country with a list of 200 or so country-paragraphs, I suggest that each continent's section (e.g. "Africa") should be introduced with a brief paragraph describing the general situation in the continent - many countries rely on farming for much of their income, and wet markets for much of the food in the cities. Then the countries can be introduced as examples, one paragraph each, probably without a separate subsection heading for each country as they're just examples. Alternatively we could split off a list article for all the countries (leaving a "Main" link), if you preferred, and perhaps we'd just discuss the situation briefly for each continent here.
Both the introductory paragraph and the split seem reasonable (and yes, I wouldn't try to create 200+ subsections here for all of the countries either). In fact, we could even do both. Will return to this. — MarkH21talk17:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)reply
OK. We have some sort of coverage which I think makes "the main points" as required by the GA criteria, and it's suitably cited.
The question of whether the 600 words on China's wet markets is overweight needs to be discussed; the country is of a similar population to India but it gets three times the coverage, so a priori the answer is yes, it's too much if the subject is "Wet market"; of course it's easier to justify if the subject is "
Wet markets and COVID" or "
Wet markets and disease" (or similar title) but that would be a COATRACK for this "
Wet market" article. The same goes, of course, for the 860 words on "Health concerns and links to disease" (1000 words if the "Media coverage" section which is also COVID-based is included). I suspect therefore that we should be thinking about balancing out this article. Given the large number of COVID- and China-related sources (of good quality) available, we might be thinking towards having a "Main" link to a subsidiary COVID-related article, leaving a short summary here in the form of a short "Disease transmission" section, and a single paragraph on China in the very promising "Around the world" section. As I say, I'm happy to discuss this and reach a workable solution here.
The "Media coverage" section clearly relates specifically to COVID, and should be grouped with that section. Since that section is already arguably overweight, I think that means merging the sections, followed by splitting out "
Wet markets and COVID" article as discussed above.
The article is richly cited to good sources; if there is a concern there at all, it would be that the China section is over-cited.
The China section (post-split) now has bunches of six or seven refs together; it might be worth grouping those as single refs (containing multiple citation templates).
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
08:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The images are basically all appropriate, but I expect (per the above) that the China and Hong Kong images will be reduced in number to match the (probably) reduced text.
Many thanks, both, for getting this over the line. I'm pleased by the article's progress through the GAN cycle and am satisfied that the article is now focused, properly cited, and suitably informative on the topic.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
18:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)reply
I see that the article has greatly expanded, and naturally taken a look at the COVID and related issues, since October 2019 when
the article was much smaller (with 13 refs). An immediate concern therefore is balance and the avoidance of
WP:COATRACKery. At first glance the editing has made quite good progress in this direction, despite the obvious pressures. It may be helpful to say that both as a reviewer and as a nominator, I'm used to working through a GAN process that involves negotiation and sometimes substantial changes to the text, even if this takes a bit of time. The comments that follow below are just my first thoughts and I'm happy to hear your thoughts and any constructive suggestions.
@
Chiswick Chap: Thanks for starting the review! It may take me a few days to get around to many of these since expansion and splitting could be quite involved, but I think that these are some really good suggestions. — MarkH21talk17:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Apologies again for the ongoing delay for the last two points, I'm gathering sources and I may not be able to use them right now, but hopefully soon. The patience is very much appreciated! — MarkH21talk07:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Please take a look and let me know what you think. The only references I could find relate to two markets, in France and Italy.
Urve (
talk)
16:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Europe is very lightly represented, with just one example (Dublin). This certainly does not do justice to Europe's rich array of traditional markets selling fresh fish, meat, dairy, and vegetables on street stalls every week.
Not a lot of sources use the exact terms wet market when discussing traditional markets in Europe that would otherwise fit the definition so there is a minor
WP:SYNTH concern. Otherwise though, the section could definitely otherwise be expanded under the alternative name of "traditional markets" as listed in the lead. What do you think about this? — MarkH21talk17:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)reply
I think we'll be all right, provided you give and cite a decent definition. You may find
Wet Markets and Food Safety by Kogan et al 2019 useful, as it makes it clear that wet markets occur in Europe as elsewhere, and provides a simple definition which unquestionably includes Europe and indeed all continents.
Hong Kong and to some extent Indonesia and Nigeria are over-represented. I'd suggest they be cut down so that we have roughly even coverage per region, and one paragraph per chosen country (I don't think we can cover every country, nor would it be appropriate to make this such a long list). Since Hong Kong is now governed by China there seems little reason to give it such prominence or indeed to give it separate coverage at all; if the China section is to be split out as a separate article, say "
China's wet markets" then the Hong Kong section should go with it, leaving just one "main" link and one paragraph of summary text.
Given that (I assume) we're not going to try to cover every country with a list of 200 or so country-paragraphs, I suggest that each continent's section (e.g. "Africa") should be introduced with a brief paragraph describing the general situation in the continent - many countries rely on farming for much of their income, and wet markets for much of the food in the cities. Then the countries can be introduced as examples, one paragraph each, probably without a separate subsection heading for each country as they're just examples. Alternatively we could split off a list article for all the countries (leaving a "Main" link), if you preferred, and perhaps we'd just discuss the situation briefly for each continent here.
Both the introductory paragraph and the split seem reasonable (and yes, I wouldn't try to create 200+ subsections here for all of the countries either). In fact, we could even do both. Will return to this. — MarkH21talk17:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)reply
OK. We have some sort of coverage which I think makes "the main points" as required by the GA criteria, and it's suitably cited.
The question of whether the 600 words on China's wet markets is overweight needs to be discussed; the country is of a similar population to India but it gets three times the coverage, so a priori the answer is yes, it's too much if the subject is "Wet market"; of course it's easier to justify if the subject is "
Wet markets and COVID" or "
Wet markets and disease" (or similar title) but that would be a COATRACK for this "
Wet market" article. The same goes, of course, for the 860 words on "Health concerns and links to disease" (1000 words if the "Media coverage" section which is also COVID-based is included). I suspect therefore that we should be thinking about balancing out this article. Given the large number of COVID- and China-related sources (of good quality) available, we might be thinking towards having a "Main" link to a subsidiary COVID-related article, leaving a short summary here in the form of a short "Disease transmission" section, and a single paragraph on China in the very promising "Around the world" section. As I say, I'm happy to discuss this and reach a workable solution here.
The "Media coverage" section clearly relates specifically to COVID, and should be grouped with that section. Since that section is already arguably overweight, I think that means merging the sections, followed by splitting out "
Wet markets and COVID" article as discussed above.
The article is richly cited to good sources; if there is a concern there at all, it would be that the China section is over-cited.
The China section (post-split) now has bunches of six or seven refs together; it might be worth grouping those as single refs (containing multiple citation templates).
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
08:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The images are basically all appropriate, but I expect (per the above) that the China and Hong Kong images will be reduced in number to match the (probably) reduced text.
Many thanks, both, for getting this over the line. I'm pleased by the article's progress through the GAN cycle and am satisfied that the article is now focused, properly cited, and suitably informative on the topic.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
18:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)reply